And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.
Problem solved.
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I like it!
OK, initial thoughts.
Disclaimer:
Need to game play test this before any real judgements are made1). Wow. Lots of changes to the game: Tech system, Tech’s themselves, NOs, etc.
2). What about NO’s in AA50s? Are they now standard?
3). How about new Tech system, standard or optional?
4). Optional rules: Closing Dardenelles? Is this still optional?
I would think it needs to be open as the new rules seem to give the allies a better chance in the game.
5). Did you consider the detuning of HB’s (RE: best of two dice) in your tech costs?
6). While I do like the intent of the rule changes in AA50s, just not so sure they are 100% needed just yet. Allied play is improving in the area of learning how to control Godzilla (Japanese Monster). Also, if you don’t like the monsters that Germany and Japan can become in the game, try playing WITHOUT the NOs. Recall that the NO’s are OPTIONAL rules. This becomes a very different (albeit longer) game.
7). There’s a lot of changes (did I say that already?).It is nice to see something started from the AARe creator. Perhaps my initial thoughts are premature. As we’ve always said when creating / tweaking AARe, game play testing is the only way to truely test any new rule ideas.
1. At an absolute minimum, I would love to just see the pre-placed IC in UK as per the parameters I mention
I think we as a community short-change ourselves by playing with the standard rules with the old, boring Allies to Berlin, Japan to Moscow playout
If we created a lot of support for just this one change, I would be happy as it would fix the playout and historical accuracy problems.
The 2nd thing I would like to see adopted is the Tech development rules. Tech in it’s current state is just not suitable for a competitive game. Too much is left to chance and strategy gets thrown out the window. Tech needs to be directed with more appropriate risk-benefit ratios.
Beyond that, the new techs are just gravy in the sense of increasing strategic options. I find games much more enjoyable when there are more strategic options available. Are they absolutely necessary? Probably not, but they would definitely make the game better.
2. Most popular game option would appear to be 1941 scenario, with NOs and so yes, I would see these as standard.
3. As per 1, I think the Tech Development rules suggested here make Tech playable (for competitve games) and as close to the OOTB rules as possible while doing so.
4. I totally dislike this rule to begin with
It would definitely NOT be part of A&A strategic.
5. Here’s my take on it
For AA50strategic, I would like to keep as many of the original rules the same as possible, including the base 12 Techs in the game and then just price them accordingly based on their as-written strength
-This maintains familiarity with the OOTB version
-Where I’m OK with things changing is any new techs we bring in. These can be whatever we like, but each needs to have a strategic/counter-strategic reason for bringing it in.
6. Again, I think the NOs do add a lot to the game and are one of defining characteristics of an Anniversary game. Their inclusion would be a MUST.
-I’m sure the Allies can incorporate some tactics to “control” the Japanese monster, but these are at the abandonment of other theaters (Africa/Russia). The game just feels like it was MEANT to be played with a 2nd UK IC. The problem is that the playtesters/developers made a MAJOR oversight in the game’s initial setup which almost completely removes this possibility
7. If you have the time axis_roll (or anyone else for that matter), I would like to playtest just core rule #1
**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #1
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada.
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC. Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)**
I’ve already playtested on my own potential openings and responses for both Axis and Allies but would certainly be willing to show you what this single rule can do.
I believe this rule would work best with Directed Tech (14 IPC to try and increase Ind or Aus production quickly) but would be willing to just have a No Tech game to keep it simple
I’d be perfectly fine with whatever turn rate you would like, and would also be fine with even just going a couple rounds to get a rough idea of potential playout (instead of whole game)
P.S. If you’re up for adding in just the Original 12 Techs but in directed form, that would make for an even better evaluation of the AA50strategic rules
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if needed
In this game, a Russian owned Buryatia can be a major thorn in Japan’s side as it serves as a landing place for US Air interested in attacking Japans home fleet
In a lot of games, it’s very important for Japan to try and take Bury as soon as they are able
So again, a reason why I’m not a fan of the firm “No Attacking each other at all” rule
7. If you have the time axis_roll (or anyone else for that matter), I would like to playtest just core rule #1
**AA50: Strategic - Core Rule Change #1
-On UK1 only, during the Purchase Units phase, UK may purchase a “Limited IC” for placement in either India, Australia, or Eastern Canada.
-This “Limited IC” costs 8 IPC. Units purchased on UK1 may be placed at the IC this turn (up to the territory limit)
-This “Limited IC” can only produce INF, RTL, and ARM initially but can be upgraded to a full IC on a future turn (for an additional 7 IPC)**I’ve already playtested on my own potential openings and responses for both Axis and Allies but would certainly be willing to show you what this single rule can do.
I believe this rule would work best with Directed Tech (14 IPC to try and increase Ind or Aus production quickly) but would be willing to just have a No Tech game to keep it simple
I’d be perfectly fine with whatever turn rate you would like, and would also be fine with even just going a couple rounds to get a rough idea of potential playout (instead of whole game)P.S. If you’re up for adding in just the Original 12 Techs but in directed form, that would make for an even better evaluation of the AA50strategic rules
2 things:
How are sides determined? There was no mention of a bid process.
Do you have some spare time you can lend me?
In all seriousness, three games is my limit and that’s where I am at right now: AARe tourney at AAMC (yes, AARe!) AAMC AA50 tourney and a great AA50 game I have going with A44BigDog. Especially with the advent of Spring right around the corner. I am a fisherman, and there is no better time to go than the spring, so I don’t see my free time increasing too much. If I do free up, I will let you know as I find this option as a nice change and might play test it in our own FTF group.
And personally, I prefer the tech by points system. Both new tech systems are a bit more work and each has their quirks, but the AA50s system doesn’t offer the ‘guarentee {but costly}’ tech that was a part of AARe.
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if neededIn this game, a Russian owned Buryatia can be a major thorn in Japan’s side as it serves as a landing place for US Air interested in attacking Japans home fleet
In a lot of games, it’s very important for Japan to try and take Bury as soon as they are able
So again, a reason why I’m not a fan of the firm “No Attacking each other at all” rule
Then what you posted initially is not what you really wanted after all. Your main point was historical accuracy, and the “boring” allies to berlin and Japan v. Russia.
Yet your #1 fix is –-- place a UK IC which can go into Canada. Please tell me how this placement aids in fixing the “history” issues.
Note : it doesnt.
There is a simple “historical” fix to your initial issue. It forces your group to think outside the box. After you have played with it, you will find other ways to win, after which, you will no longer need the rule.
I’d also note you insist on NO’s, which is an admitted cause of the “axis advantage” you dont like. But AR already noted that above.
I think though, that there are enough smart players on this website, much smarter than the people who actually made the game, that we should be able to come up with just 1 or 2 house rules that fix this inherent flaw in the game
I also think you owe Larry an apology for this.
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if needed
I second Cousin_Joes thought. Penalize with consequences, not outlaw.
One proposal I’ve seen in another thread (recently, by Darth) how to implement this penalty woould be an NO: Russia gets an extra $5 if Japan occupies any originally russian controlled territory.
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if neededI second Cousin_Joes thought. Penalize with consequences, not outlaw.
One proposal I’ve seen in another thread (recently, by Darth) how to implement this penalty woould be an NO: Russia gets an extra $5 if Japan occupies any originally russian controlled territory.
And what does this do for “historical accuracy”? You just give USSR 4 inf up front, or 3 inf/2 turns. You still have the “non-historical” playout, only you’re fine with it because its “more fair” or something.
If one is “truly tired” of japan attacking moscow, then the simple fix is the one I posted.
If you do your proposed steps, then you are not truly tired of it after all. You just want a free allied bonus.
Squirecam is right. Kinda
1> Japan cannot attack Soviet Union unless USA falls
2> Soviets cannot attack Japan until Berlin falls
If you want to tweek rule 1 because you view it as a harsh rule, then add the Soviet far east forces at any time Japan decided to attack ( immediately appears 15-24 IPC worth of Soviet plastic as a penalty)
AS far as the game goes it is balanced and does not require any special rules ( if your not playing with NO’s which don’t make sence anyway). Any new rules would presumably be only to add flavor.
And of course, the one playout I detest the most… Japan pushes to Moscow :roll:
1. No allied units can enter USSR territory unless Moscow falls.
2. Japan can not attack USSR unless USSR attacks Japan first.Problem solved.
I’m not a big fan of these hard and fast rules
It limits strategic options too much so
I’d rather see rules that would penalize either party for breaking the treaty, but not completely disallow it
In Enhanced, we had a 4INF penalty (either added to attacked territory or home territory) which actually deterred an attack a lot of the time but still allowed for the possibility if neededI second Cousin_Joes thought. Penalize with consequences, not outlaw.
One proposal I’ve seen in another thread (recently, by Darth) how to implement this penalty woould be an NO: Russia gets an extra $5 if Japan occupies any originally russian controlled territory.
And what does this do for “historical accuracy”? You just give USSR 4 inf up front, or 3 inf/2 turns. You still have the “non-historical” playout, only you’re fine with it because its “more fair” or something.
If one is “truly tired” of japan attacking moscow, then the simple fix is the one I posted.
If you do your proposed steps, then you are not truly tired of it after all. You just want a free allied bonus.
I never said anything about historical accuracy.
The whole game is about history being changed.
I want a game with many strategic options. Not just the KGF/KIF where Germany has to hold out until Godzilla (70+ IPC Japan) comes to kill Moscow.
I never said anything about historical accuracy.
The whole game is about history being changed.
I want a game with many strategic options. Not just the KGF/KIF where Germany has to hold out until Godzilla (70+ IPC Japan) comes to kill Moscow.
Well, according to the first post, A&A “strategic” was supposed to be 1 or 2 simple rules changes to “enhance” historical accuracy. Then you and CJ discussed everything but a 1-2 simple rule change.
Which is also my point.
If you want to “re-balance” A&A because you feel its not fair, there’s a simple way. Its a bid. With that bid, the allies can place x # of units directly in India, which may be sufficient to hold it. Perhaps. Or Perhaps not. But at some #, X + UK IC purchase will hold.
Rather than find a bid to equal the pacific game, CJ places an IC (which if in Canada, does nothing for historical flavor). Except that the same result can be done with a sufficient pre-placed India bid, which then doesnt absolutely require UK to defend the IC, but still alows it to be built.
But still this does nothing to answer the supposed issue - Japan vs russia.
The simple fix I proposed will solve that issue, and not require tech changes, a “1/2 IC” idea, or any other haphazzard idea. Its two clearly historical rules, which is what this topic was supposed to be about.
So either change what A&A strategic is supposed to fix (History), or lets start discussing actual history fixes rather than stuff having nothing to do with Historical accuracy.
I never said anything about historical accuracy.
The whole game is about history being changed.
I want a game with many strategic options. Not just the KGF/KIF where Germany has to hold out until Godzilla (70+ IPC Japan) comes to kill Moscow.
Well, according to the first post, A&A “strategic” was supposed to be 1 or 2 simple rules changes to “enhance” historical accuracy. Then you and CJ discussed everything but a 1-2 simple rule change.
That was not my post. C_J said that. Take you historical accuracy point up with him. I never mentioned anything about historical accuracy. I think that arguement is bunk. I have NEVER ever made that arguement when discussing A&A ANYWHERE.
If you want to “re-balance” A&A because you feel its not fair, there’s a simple way. Its a bid. With that bid, the allies can place x # of units directly in India, which may be sufficient to hold it. Perhaps. Or Perhaps not. But at some #, X + UK IC purchase will hold.
Part of the problem is not only trying to achieve a balanced game, but adding variability in viable strategies. If we always play the one ultimate strategy because it’s the only one that works, then the difference becomes who gets what dice and when.
If A&A comes to that, I’d rather play Yathzee then. It’s less set up and takes less time. About the same startegic value too.
Rather than find a bid to equal the pacific game, CJ places an IC (which if in Canada, does nothing for historical flavor). Except that the same result can be done with a sufficient pre-placed India bid, which then doesnt absolutely require UK to defend the IC, but still alows it to be built.
But still this does nothing to answer the supposed issue - Japan vs russia.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
The simple fix I proposed will solve that issue, and not require tech changes, a “1/2 IC” idea, or any other haphazzard idea. Its two clearly historical rules, which is what this topic was supposed to be about.
simple rule change? yes it’s simple.
Reduce game play strategic options? Yes it does.
And for that reason I dislike it. It may be a great simple fix, but I do not prefer to be told that I can not do a strategic move. Penalize me or reward the opponent, but do not outlaw.
Also, why are your rule proposed changes any better than the 1/2 IC and/or tech changes {or any other for that sake}? Because you think they increase the historical accuracy better than the ones proposed in this thread?
So either change what A&A strategic is supposed to fix (History), or lets start discussing actual history fixes rather than stuff having nothing to do with Historical accuracy.
You are too fixated one one comment about C_J where he wishes ‘Increased Historical Accuracy’. If the game is changed with these rules changes in only one aspect of historical accuracy, then these rules have INCREASED the HISTORICAL ACCURACY of the game.
Also, You can drop that point in your replies to me.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
Sure it is. India can have three units placed. If a “fair” bid is, for examples sake, a 10 bid, then India can have 2 inf and an art placed in India. Buying a “full” complex (15) is then a total of 15 IPC.
In this CJ scenario, India buys a 1/2 IC (8 IPC), plus the cost of units (2inf/art) which is 18 IPC. If UK wanted a “full” IC, it costs them another 7 IPC, for a total of 25.
It’s much more reasonable to have a 10 bid (placed in India) and a fully functional IC, then a 1/2 IC which still costs UK 3-8 more IPC.
In order to “fully utilize” the IC, the CJ idea is less cost effective then the simple fix, a bid.
simple rule change? yes it’s simple.
Reduce game play strategic options? Yes it does.
And for that reason I dislike it. It may be a great simple fix, but I do not prefer to be told that I can not do a strategic move. Penalize me or reward the opponent, but do not outlaw.
Actually, the IC in Canada does nothing to increase strategic options. The India IC, once built, forced UK to defend it, actually decreasing options. If you just put bid units there, you could, depending on circumstances, withdraw them and not be forced to defend an IC.
You are too fixated one one comment about C_J where he wishes ‘Increased Historical Accuracy’. If the game is changed with these rules changes in only one aspect of historical accuracy, then these rules have INCREASED the HISTORICAL ACCURACY of the game.
Also, You can drop that point in your replies to me.
Yes, because those were the parameters he created for “A&A strategic”. Nevertheless, I wont raise it with you again.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
Sure it is. India can have three units placed. If a “fair” bid is, for examples sake, a 10 bid, then India can have 2 inf and an art placed in India. Buying a “full” complex (15) is then a total of 15 IPC.
In this CJ scenario, India buys a 1/2 IC (8 IPC), plus the cost of units (2inf/art) which is 18 IPC. If UK wanted a “full” IC, it costs them another 7 IPC, for a total of 25.
You have presupposed that UK will always invest the extra $7. There is no need if all they ever want to drop is ground units in India.
It’s much more reasonable to have a 10 bid (placed in India) and a fully functional IC, then a 1/2 IC which still costs UK 3-8 more IPC.
again, the assumption of a need to make the IC fully functional. This is an assumption that you can not always make. Certainly it is an option for UK, but not a necessity.
In order to “fully utilize” the IC, the CJ idea is less cost effective then the simple fix, a bid.
I am going to call you Captain Fixate. :evil:
You hone in on one issue and drill it into the ground. Perhaps the A&A Dentist might be better :wink:
Fun nicknames aside, and avoiding the purely cost aspect of bid versus IC (1/2, full, whatever…)
an IC allows ADDITIONAL units turn after turn whereas a bid is a one time placement of units
THIS is the key point to be made that differentiates a BID from an IC.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
You have presupposed that UK will always invest the extra $7. There is no need if all they ever want to drop is ground units in India.
again, the assumption of a need to make the IC fully functional. This is an assumption that you can not always make. Certainly it is an option for UK, but not a necessity.
Forget the “extra” 7 IPC, as its still 18 to 15 for the 1/2 IC and units vs the bid units. You dont need the extra 7 to make the bid system more worthwile.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
You dont need the extra 7 to make the bid system more worthwile.
No one said a bid system was not worth while
I thought the discussion was about the BID and a pre placed IC as the same thing. I was saying they’re two different things and you really can’t compare them.
But somehow you feel they are, and I am not sure I can see any arguements from you that can persuade me that an ‘apple’ is the same as an ‘orange’
I will repeat my thoughts: Assuming they are both priced the same at a grocery store, an Apple {“pre-placed, one time bid”} is not the same as an Orange {“limited IC that can place units the same turn it is bought and mobilized”}
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
I thought the discussion was about the BID and a pre placed IC as the same thing. I was saying they’re two different things and you really can’t compare them.
But somehow you feel they are, and I am not sure I can see any arguements from you that can persuade me that an ‘apple’ is the same as an ‘orange’
I will repeat my thoughts: Assuming they are both priced the same at a grocery store, an Apple {“pre-placed, one time bid”} is not the same as an Orange {“limited IC that can place units the same turn it is bought and mobilized”}
The 1/2 IC is unnecessary. The bid system does the same thing, only cheaper. Having the bid units there, which can be moved R1 rather than just placed, adds additional benefit. So the “fix” doesnt fix anything a bid doesnt do better.
And when something is better than another, you can compare them. The bid system is clearly better.
Additional units are NOT equal to a reduced price IC that can place units on UK1. So your comparision of bid units to the IC is baseless.
I thought the discussion was about the BID and a pre placed IC as the same thing. I was saying they’re two different things and you really can’t compare them.
But somehow you feel they are, and I am not sure I can see any arguements from you that can persuade me that an ‘apple’ is the same as an ‘orange’
I will repeat my thoughts: Assuming they are both priced the same at a grocery store, an Apple {“pre-placed, one time bid”} is not the same as an Orange {“limited IC that can place units the same turn it is bought and mobilized”}
The 1/2 IC is unnecessary. The bid system does the same thing, only cheaper. Having the bid units there, which can be moved R1 rather than just placed, adds additional benefit. So the “fix” doesnt fix anything a bid doesnt do better.
Again you state your opinion other than facts.
An IC adds unit that AFFECTs the whole game, not just the first round. That means they do NOT do the same thing.
I guess to you, an APPLE and an ORANGE ARE the same.
And when something is better than another, you can compare them. The bid system is clearly better.
Again, your opinion. And everyone is entitled to their own.
I am tired of trying to ask you to explain to me how a bid is the same (but better!) than an IC.
All you do is restate that one system is BETTER than the other.
I’m done with this discussion, it is going nowhere.
A bid is more flexible, while a 15 IPC factory in India is totally arbitrary and based on nothing when the results of AA50 games do not indicate any need to give the British player this to make the game balanced. Rather it is just an opinion based on somebodies playing style while the results or ‘after action reports’ do not indicate this need at all.
It is not like AA50 is imbalanced unless the British player “gets a fixed 15 IPC factory in India at game start”
If the value of the allied bid is proven to be at 15 IPC, then allow the Allies to decide what they want to do to allow more variation is strategy, then to stick them with some line of play that forces them into something they don’t want to do.
If you want “what if” a factory in India for UK is non consistent with that philosophy. Rather let the allies decide what they will buy as the bid has worked before.
@Imperious:
A bid is more flexible, while a 15 IPC factory in India is totally arbitrary and based on nothing when the results of AA50 games do not indicate any need to give the British player this to make the game balanced. Rather it is just an opinion based on somebodies playing style while the results or ‘after action reports’ do not indicate this need at all.
Let’s ask this question. What would the allies do with a 15 bid? Hmm. Help UK in Africa (Egypt) and Russia in europe to defeat Germany. Why? To help an already effective and most commonly used KGF playout.
sure, you COULD place the bid elsewhere, but IF YOU WERE PLAYING TO WIN THE GAME (not for fun or game play testing), the allies would MOST likely follow the Revised game plan of KGF(KIF).
Why can I say this with such certainty? Because Godzilla (70+ IPC Japan) eventually will kill you if you don’t get Germany first. AA50 playout is doomed to be as predictable as AAR in a tourney situation.
@Imperious:
It is not like AA50 is imbalanced unless the British player “gets a fixed 15 IPC factory in India at game start”
I am not so sure Cousin_Joe’s main reasoning behind the limited IC idea was meant for strictly balance. I believe the real main reason is to open up other strategies in AA50. The way AA50 is now, unless UK (and USA) get some pressure on the western Axis powers, they will grow too strong to be conquered (if they haven’t taken out Russia first!) So this limits the allied strategic options.
Making an IC in India / Australia a VIABLE option serves to open up the allied option of trying to go after Japan first/primarily (as well as add balance to a game heavily weighted in the Axis favor)
@Imperious:
If the value of the allied bid is proven to be at 15 IPC, then allow the Allies to decide what they want to do to allow more variation is strategy, then to stick them with some line of play that forces them into something they don’t want to do.
There is no forcing UK to buy an IC, just like there is no forcing the Allies to place their 15 bid units in India.
@Imperious:
If you want “what if” a factory in India for UK is non consistent with that philosophy. Rather let the allies decide what they will buy as the bid has worked before.
See above discussion about just WHERE that bid will go, and you will realize that there will become the optimal placement for the bid.
Look, I am not saying that the bid system is bad. Is is good and simple and it does add balance to the game. But I think a bid is lacking in it’s ability to add variation in game play. Why? Because the bid level will never get high enough to make a huge difference in the pacific/asian theatre. In the end, it will only serve to strengthen the best allied game plan.
If you try to think outside the box of using only a bid, the IC placement can give the allies another VIABLE strategic option of in the Pacific theatre.
Remember, these are two different concepts to altering imbalance that is inherant in 1941 scenario with NOs. The IC has other characteristics to it beyond what a mere placement of additional units does to change the game.
One last thought. Has anyone besides C_J tried this idea? I am defending it based merely on the idea that playout variability will be increased.
I intend to game play test this next week.
It’s easy to speculate on an idea that changes the game, it’s another to prove it through several games of testing. THEN we can make better judgements on how good an idea is.
